Can you use synthetic nutes in living soil?

Flowki

Flowki

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
I just hate those who think they can save the world in general thesedays :-)
Click to expand...
Individuals effect everyone around them, put out shit, get back shit, your little neck of the woods becomes shit. Doing the opposite of that won't save the world?. At-least they try. I get your over all meaning but damn, it's a bit dark.

Anyway on the thread. The only thing I consider for oganic vs synthetic these days is what one is safer. Synthetic from a reliable source is almost clinical. Organics a lot less so, while it is ''natural'' it is far more subject to human contamination. But then the spanner in the works is that microbes have formed with plants for millions of years.

I don't think we currently fully understand the effects of microbes on plants, extra flavour, more nutrition and a whole host of other variables. I can't figure if synthetic is like steroids so to speak, faster or bigger results at a cost of foundational quality or longevity.

I dunno, I just can't get off the bus of humans being naive to think we can cut out millions of years worth of plant/microbe evolution and get better results all round. But that said, I don't see any other species that has managed to double it's life span. I hate the ability to play self devils advocate, never get anything sorted ;/.

Perhaps the middle ground of using both is optimal.. or perhaps we are kidding ourselves. Like saying 4 cans per night is better than binge drinking on a week end. Damn you devil, damn you.
 
Last edited:
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
Plant dont need mycos if its got chems is what the study was and is up until this present day. Its not that stuffs affected but if plant has all it needs mycos dont make a difference and thus the roots and stuff dont favour it.

Bacteria and fungi are advanced stuff - we generalise but pick a species and we can list all tollerances.

Its why organic works with chems so well :-)

Study harder :-)



ganga gurl420 said:
I don't think anyone said it would sterilize it... but I've read study after study stating that even tho bacteria wasnt as effected but Mycorrhizal was. Organic farmers do their best to keep both happy healthy.

But hey ...what ever works best for you guys
Click to expand...
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
Just like recycling not one of these warriors has changed any climate or made any effect, actually the opposite has happened and every statistical data entry gets worse not better.

When the earths temperature isnt rising you will know your doing something right, until then its no different to led hype or boveda where ignorance is bliss but the reality is the polar opposite.

Id rather get to the end quicker, shouldnt be a problem growing weed and finding a nice secluded beach to chill on whilst humanities toxicity gently laps at the sure.

Ive never had a reason to pollute till now :-)





Flowki said:
Individuals effect everyone around them, put out shit, get back shit, your little neck of the woods becomes shit. Doing the opposite of that won't save the world?. At-least they try. I get your over all meaning but damn, it's a bit dark.

Anyway on the thread. The only thing I consider for oganic vs synthetic these days is what one is safer. Synthetic from a reliable source is almost clinical. Organics a lot less so, while it is ''natural'' it is far more subject to human contamination. But then the spanner in the works is that microbes have formed with plants for millions of years.

I don't think we currently fully understand the effects of microbes on plants, extra flavour, more nutrition and a whole host of other variables. I can't figure if synthetic is like steroids so to speak, faster or bigger results at a cost of foundational quality or longevity.

I dunno, I just can't get off the bus of humans being naive to think we can cut out millions of years worth of plant/microbe evolution and get better results all round. But that said, I don't see any other species that has managed to double it's life span. I hate the ability to play self devils advocate.. never get anything sorted ;p.
Click to expand...
 
ganga gurl420

ganga gurl420

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
Plant dont need mycos if its got chems is what the study was and is up until this present day. Its not that stuffs affected but if plant has all it needs mycos dont make a difference and thus the roots and stuff dont favour it.

Bacteria and fungi are advanced stuff - we generalise but pick a species and we can list all tollerances.

Its why organic works with chems so well :-)

Study harder :-)
Click to expand...
I understand the difference between feeding the plant and feeding the soil. I was a synthetic grower for many yrs til I switch to organic and seen a multi pound difference per plant.

I tried everything in the past...all with okay results. Everyone can bash organics and mycos and bacteria all they want, Makes no difference to me... like I said, proof is in the pudding. The difference for me is pounds and pounds.
 
Flowki

Flowki

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
Plant dont need mycos if its got chems is what the study was and is up until this present day. Its not that stuffs affected but if plant has all it needs mycos dont make a difference and thus the roots and stuff dont favour it.

Bacteria and fungi are advanced stuff - we generalise but pick a species and we can list all tolerances.

Its why organic works with chems so well :-)

Study harder :-)
Click to expand...
You are not seeing the whole picture. Microbe/plant interactions play a role, dna triggers that only occur when x/y/z conditions are met. We can meet the needs for the basic building blocks very easily, however the subtle expressions brought out by varying mixes of interactions are surely vast. In the simplistic subjective realms of yield we have an understanding. In the long term effects (food sources included) we do not know the full implications of microbe free produce on human diet. I say microbe free in that we (synth+organic) tend to limit down to certain types of microbes, the ones that only benefit yield or common disease.

I am not saying it is inherently good or bad. Just that to state we understand everything about plant/microbe interactions and the final impact on humans is naive. If you look at microbes from a ethology>molecular stance then you can see a vast land of possibilities via environment/dna reaction. That's before human consumption and our own chain of reactions.

I dare say as more medical research is done we may see certain microbes being required (or understood) to produce a certain enzyme, etc, that triggers the plant to produce a certain ratio of X thc type. As a simplistic example. We may even see new types of various catigories found through the interactions of specific fixation. In truth, It simply has to work like this or else their would be no point in diversity, one microbe type would do it all.

The problem with all this kind of thing is subjectivity of outcome blinding the entire objective picture. It's quite amazing what we brush aside if with don't believe it to be of any use. Fine, if we're always right.
 
Flowki

Flowki

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
Just like recycling not one of these warriors has changed any climate or made any effect, actually the opposite has happened and every statistical data entry gets worse not better.

When the earths temperature isnt rising you will know your doing something right, until then its no different to led hype or boveda where ignorance is bliss but the reality is the polar opposite.

Id rather get to the end quicker, shouldnt be a problem growing weed and finding a nice secluded beach to chill on whilst humanities toxicity gently laps at the sure.

Ive never had a reason to pollute till now :-)
Click to expand...
Recycling takes on many forms and helps reduce energy consumption, you're flat out wrong on that. Increasing at 40 and increasing at 30 are two different things, you have to understand stats if you are going to bring them up.

The earth has natural temp and other fluctuations too, so good luck with that concept.

Yeah I think you would rather through your hands in the air and say ''fuck it, nothing I can do''. Giving up is easy, thankfully not everybody shares that mentality. I've dropped down to one motor vehicle now, the most economical one I can afford. I also reduce as much waste as possible. The past me was at 40, now 30. But no difference right ^^.

Negativity is a choice young Jedi :peace:.
 
R

Ryante55

Well-Known Member
ganga gurl420 said:
I understand the difference between feeding the plant and feeding the soil. I was a synthetic grower for many yrs til I switch to organic and seen a multi pound difference per plant.

I tried everything in the past...all with okay results. Everyone can bash organics and mycos and bacteria all they want, Makes no difference to me... like I said, proof is in the pudding. The difference for me is pounds and pounds.
Click to expand...
I call bullshit you either didn't keep the synthetic nute plants healthy or you changed pot size and are failing to mention that.
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
Have you solved the worlds climate problems - no.

Does it look.like you ever will - no.

Kids left school to point these simple facts out :-)

Flowki said:
Recycling takes on many forms and helps reduce energy consumption, you're flat out wrong on that. Increasing at 40 and increasing at 30 are two different things, you have to understand stats if you are going to bring them up.

The earth has natural temp and other fluctuations too, so good luck with that concept.

Yeah I think you would rather through your hands in the air and say ''fuck it, nothing I can do''. Giving up is easy, thankfully not everybody shares that mentality. I've dropped down to one motor vehicle now, the most economical one I can afford. I also reduce as much waste as possible. The past me was at 40, now 30. But no difference right ^^.

Negativity is a choice young Jedi :peace:.
Click to expand...
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
Organic activates many more plant systems than chem ferts, no one can tell chem from organ bud in blind tests and neither grows the biggest bud bud chem has been reported to be quicker slightly just due to availability and hydro even more so as well as due to perfect oxygen ratios.

:-)



ganga gurl420 said:
I understand the difference between feeding the plant and feeding the soil. I was a synthetic grower for many yrs til I switch to organic and seen a multi pound difference per plant.

I tried everything in the past...all with okay results. Everyone can bash organics and mycos and bacteria all they want, Makes no difference to me... like I said, proof is in the pudding. The difference for me is pounds and pounds.
Click to expand...
 
ganga gurl420

ganga gurl420

Well-Known Member
I'm not going to debate anymore. I said I've tried many many different methods of growing and found one that works for me.
I mean you guys can prove me wrong if you wish next season....throw one outdoors and let's see what happens.

Most say you cant grow the way I grow and I'm killing it and getting better every yr. If you grow like everyone else you will end up with the same results as everyone else... that is why I constantly experiment. Anyways you guys have fun... I'm done here lol
 
hillbill

hillbill

Well-Known Member
I do ROLS for years and am maybe 99% organic but it is not a religion to me and I am no purist and a quick shot of Peters 20-20-20 cures a lot of ills damn fast
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
Have you solved the worlds climate problems - no.

Does it look.like you ever will - no.

Kids left school to point these simple facts out :-)
Click to expand...
Yeah, we aren't gonna solve shit, if we just give up like that. Based on your logic we might as well just all kill ourselves now, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top